Do You Think Prop. 8 Should Be Repealed?

This weekend CA Attorney General Jerry Brown asked the CA Supreme Court to void Proposition 8 because it is unconstitutional. The attorney general must defend the laws of California. Yet Brown says Prop 8 makes his job impossible, because the amendment contradicts another part of the state Constitution: the equal protection clause.
Right after 52 percent of voters passed the gay marriage ban, Brown claimed he would uphold the will of the voters, and when the Court legalized same-sex marriage earlier this year, Brown had argued against it. But now, Brown says:

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Brown thinks that in the conflict between the people's amendment power, and the court's duty to protect minorities and liberties, the court's duty should prevail. What do you think?

Well I've never been married UnDave however I have enough experience to know that you and your wife as with any other married couple have rites that I don't have as a single person. Now if you're talking about semantics such as are they rights like the rights in the Bill of Rights that's silly because even if they're technically called privileges etc. those privileges or rights or whatever you wanna call them are still going to have to answer to the intent of the Constitution of the State of California and that is equal treatment under the law.

"Those who are married as you know have certain rights under the law that the rest of us do not so IMO it is not the marriage itself that is the right but the rights we are afforded because we are married."
What rights do married people have that single people don't?

"Those who are married as you know have certain rights under the law that the rest of us do not so IMO it is not the marriage itself that is the right but the rights we are afforded because we are married."What rights do married people have that single people don't?

This may surprise some but I'm inclined to agree Hainan57 that marriage is one of those unique things that isn't necessarily a right in itself but it is an afforder of rights, a gateway to rights. Those who are married as you know have certain rights under the law that the rest of us do not so IMO it is not the marriage itself that is the right but the rights we are afforded because we are married. Domestic partnership no matter how close it may come is not an equal replacement for marriage and if it is not an equal replacement to marriage than to ban homosexuals from getting married is to deny them the equality that the constitution affords them.

And for the record a private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone he doesn't agree with. Government- that's a whole other debate. But seriously cases like a photographer getting sued because he didn't want to take photos at a gay wedding is why people don't want to legalize gay marriage. It is being forced on everyone.

How do we know they don't? We don't know how they communicate with each other. For all we know they could be saying "Did you see that pansy? She's a crossbreader."
:ROTFL:
And as to the polygamy thing, I'm not against the idea of being having several wives/husbands... I just don't understand why anyone would want that. I can barely handle one :)

How do we know they don't? We don't know how they communicate with each other. For all we know they could be saying "Did you see that pansy? She's a crossbreader.":ROTFL:And as to the polygamy thing, I'm not against the idea of being having several wives/husbands... I just don't understand why anyone would want that. I can barely handle one :)

CG, there is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, and that is the 'Biblical' view.
The theologians of the new covenant system are fond of claiming that the old covenant law of Moses is somehow not in effect for Christians today, while at the same time using old covenant laws of Moses (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, etc.) as laws still in effect for Christians today. The understanding as they see it is if it's repeated in the new covenant, then it's still in effect. But the question is, how then is the old covenant law then still in effect if it was done away with? It is inconsistent at best, and presents a very shaky foundation.
In this system it is supposed that the New Covenant is a totally different Covenant, when in fact it is different and New only in that the continuity of it is seen in a new and glorious way in it's fulfillment, that we who are under that law may not all be condemned. It's not new in the sense that the law is abrogated. It's new in that it doesn't condemn us because of our works, or lack thereof. However, it still condemns those not in Christ, which is proof that nothing has changed concerning the old covenant law. Those who know the law and don't keep it will be judged more severely, thus the law stands.
James 2:8-11
* "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
* But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
* For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
* For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."
Clearly, and without ambiguity, the law of Moses stands. It is not done away with for the reprobate. The only people who are not condemned by it, are those in Christ. So while New Covenant Theologians believe that Christ gives the Church new and higher standards of conduct than Moses gave under a covenant of law, it is self evident that the law of Christ 'is' the law of Moses. The law under which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob toiled is the same law under which we toil. And as they were Saved not by fulfilling the Covenant of works, but Christ fulfilling it for them, so we have that same Grace. Proponents of this view argue that there is no 'covenant of Grace,' but this is the most accurate title to represent the single plan of redemption which God has instituted from the beginning.
plus the New Covenant law is primarily found by Baptists; 7 Day Adventists and most Catholic repel this view.

CG, there is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, and that is the 'Biblical' view. The theologians of the new covenant system are fond of claiming that the old covenant law of Moses is somehow not in effect for Christians today, while at the same time using old covenant laws of Moses (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, etc.) as laws still in effect for Christians today. The understanding as they see it is if it's repeated in the new covenant, then it's still in effect. But the question is, how then is the old covenant law then still in effect if it was done away with? It is inconsistent at best, and presents a very shaky foundation.In this system it is supposed that the New Covenant is a totally different Covenant, when in fact it is different and New only in that the continuity of it is seen in a new and glorious way in it's fulfillment, that we who are under that law may not all be condemned. It's not new in the sense that the law is abrogated. It's new in that it doesn't condemn us because of our works, or lack thereof. However, it still condemns those not in Christ, which is proof that nothing has changed concerning the old covenant law. Those who know the law and don't keep it will be judged more severely, thus the law stands.<b>James 2:8-11 * "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: * But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. * For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. * For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." </b>Clearly, and without ambiguity, the law of Moses stands. It is not done away with for the reprobate. The only people who are not condemned by it, are those in Christ. So while New Covenant Theologians believe that Christ gives the Church new and higher standards of conduct than Moses gave under a covenant of law, it is self evident that the law of Christ 'is' the law of Moses. The law under which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob toiled is the same law under which we toil. And as they were Saved not by fulfilling the Covenant of works, but Christ fulfilling it for them, so we have that same Grace. Proponents of this view argue that there is no 'covenant of Grace,' but this is the most accurate title to represent the single plan of redemption which God has instituted from the beginning. plus the New Covenant law is primarily found by Baptists; 7 Day Adventists and most Catholic repel this view.

Two good souls that love and value one another should be able to legally marry each other. No matter what sex they are. Others need to remove their prejudice views and see that we are all just souls that deserve equal rights.
The ONLY time I believe a marriage should not be permitted is when one or both of those persons are in jail. Being in jail is about punishment, not having the same rights as a free being. Once free if they want to marry- fine, whatever. However to tell two people that have never committed a crime except not being socially accepted, that they cannot marry is far from fair. (I get that my first statement may contradict this one however I am extremely tired, so hopefully you get the idea what I mean (how the innocent have rights are taken away but criminals still have some of theirs.))
Also, to say there is stereotyping of those that voted in Prop. 8; how could people not create a stereotype? Most of the supporters continue to quote the bible, hence the Catholic stereotype. Most Catholics are hypocrites since they DO pick and choose which "sins" to acknowledge. How convenient that they have "written off" the others. However it isn't just Catholics that pick & choose, there are plenty of establishments that are that way (to clear up any issue you might have with only pointing the finger in one direction.)

Two good souls that love and value one another should be able to legally marry each other. No matter what sex they are. Others need to remove their prejudice views and see that we are all just souls that deserve equal rights. The ONLY time I believe a marriage should not be permitted is when one or both of those persons are in jail. Being in jail is about punishment, not having the same rights as a free being. Once free if they want to marry- fine, whatever. However to tell two people that have never committed a crime except not being socially accepted, that they cannot marry is far from fair. (I get that my first statement may contradict this one however I am extremely tired, so hopefully you get the idea what I mean (how the innocent have rights are taken away but criminals still have some of theirs.))Also, to say there is stereotyping of those that voted in Prop. 8; how could people not create a stereotype? Most of the supporters continue to quote the bible, hence the Catholic stereotype. Most Catholics are hypocrites since they DO pick and choose which "sins" to acknowledge. How convenient that they have "written off" the others. However it isn't just Catholics that pick & choose, there are plenty of establishments that are that way (to clear up any issue you might have with only pointing the finger in one direction.)

"Fine by me - sounds like 'promoting the general welfare' which when the Constitution was written referred to "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being"."
I'm sure that's what the framers intended. The "general welfare" is repudiation of oligarchy, not a blank check to create a giant commune.

"Fine by me - sounds like 'promoting the general welfare' which when the Constitution was written referred to "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being"."I'm sure that's what the framers intended. The "general welfare" is repudiation of oligarchy, not a blank check to create a giant commune.

Check the case law. In California, it is considered a basic right to form committed relationships that establish a family unit. To suddenly say 'oh, that doesn't apply to gay people' denies them a basic right.

First of all, seeing as gay marriage wasn't legal until judges overturned the proposition 22.... I'm pretty sure the California constitution didn't say gay marriage was a right when written, but ok. California changed the wording of their constitution... :? No they didn't. Marriage isn't a right. If someone can show me a constitution that says that, I will agree with you.